Search The Register-Guard

archive

Editorial

A victory for intimidation

An appeal of a variance for Autzen’s ‘O’ sign dropped

Appeared in print: Friday, May 15, 2009, page A10

Does Eugene have a sign code anymore? Maybe not, because apparently all that’s required to obtain an after-the-fact variance for an oversized sign installed without a permit is to ask for one. At least, that’s how it works if the institution doing the asking is the University of Oregon, which now has an exception to city rules allowing its big “O” sign to remain on the south side of Autzen Stadium. Anyone who challenges the variance risks ridicule, invasions of privacy and threats.

Perhaps some other enterprise in Eugene should test this new way of applying the city’s signage and zoning regulations. A tire store could put up a sign big enough to be seen from the South Sister and cite the UO precedent as grounds for keeping it. Of course, there’s a difference: The tire store couldn’t count on a mob rushing forward to intimidate a critic into silence.

The UO installed the sign in the fall of 2007 to ensure that the university’s “O” logo would be in the background of an ESPN “Game Day” broadcast. At 816 square feet, it’s eight times the size of signs the city allows without a variance. The UO obtained no such variance.

McKay Sohlberg, a UO associate professor who can see the sign from her house, filed a complaint. The city of Eugene’s planning director said the sign could stay. Sohlberg appealed that decision to a hearings officer. The Register-Guard reported on the matter in a May 6 story.

Then came the ton-of-bricks treatment. Readers posted dozens of critical comments on the newspaper’s Web site, and the vitriol began to feed on itself. The more rational comments accused Sohlberg of being ungrateful to her employer and disloyal to the Ducks. The worst ones amounted to personal attacks, invective and incitement to harassment.

The paper scrubbed the comments from the Web site and blocked further responses. A forum intended for free speech and the exchange of ideas had been abused so badly that it had to be shut down.

Sohlberg’s troubles didn’t end there. She received hostile phone calls at home and at work. Some of what she heard led her to believe she had reason to be fearful.

No one heaved a brick through Sohlberg’s window, but some people seemed ready to do that or worse — so much so that a car passing at night would arouse pulse-­pounding apprehensions. Sohlberg cares more about her family’s safety and peace of mind than she does about the UO’s sign, so she withdrew her appeal.

Sohlberg’s decision to drop the matter is wholly understandable. She stood a fair chance of prevailing in her appeal. She realized, however, that she would infuriate people even more by being proved right than she already had done by asking questions. If the UO had been forced to remove the sign, the mob would have blamed Sohlberg — not the university for failing to follow proper procedures, and not the city for looking the other way.

So the bullies have won. It’s disappointing that more people, including the university’s leaders, did not rally to Sohlberg’s defense. Even those who disagree with Sohlberg’s challenge to the sign could have been more vigorous in upholding her right to call the UO and the city to account. Instead, Sohlberg was left to face a gale of hostile opinion on her own.

Now, the “O” sign can stay, provided the university pays the usual permit fee. For not having obtained a permit in the first place, the fee will be doubled. Instead of paying $950, the fee will be $1,900.

Sohlberg has paid a higher price, but the UO can’t count this as a win. Neither can the larger Eugene community. For a time, at least, the big “O” will represent things other than the Ducks. It will represent the power of big institutions and the triumph of shouting over dialogue.